Posted by Linda Griffin
a resident of Atherton
on Nov 14, 2007 at 7:10 pm

I find it difficult to believe that the Stanford faculty protest is based solely on the view that Rumsfeld was an incompetent Secretary of Defense. Many people in the United States and around the world consider him a war criminal for his role in an illegal war and torture. It follows that it would be more appropriate for him to be in jail than a "distinquished visiting fellow" at the Hoover Institute. The same could be said for the tenured Condoleeza Rice should she decide she would like to return to Stanford. It may be some time before their crimes catch up with them, but until they do, should Stanford turn a blind eye for fear of the appearance of suppressing free speech?

The "illegal war" and "torture" war criminal rhetoric is just more of the same. If there were any way possible to put him to trial on any of these absurdities, I have no doubt at all that it would have happened by now, given the amount of sheer hatred that the far left has for him.

Those who use this rhetoric look as silly as those who use the rhetoric of the right.

Posted by Welcome Rumsfeld
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 14, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Well, I doubt you read this drivel Mr. Rumsfeld, but if anyone points it out to you, let me say that there are many of us who absolutely support you and see you as an intelligent and honorable person who did his best to help steer our response to terrorism. I supported the decision to go into Afghanistan and Iraq, and, though it appears we may have made some errors, for all we know the "errors" of small footprint types may very well be the very "errors" that have built the trust in us that the majority of the Iraqi people's ELECTED leaders have.

We, in concert with the Iraqi people and our friends and allies, are winning the peace and the liberty of the Iraqi people.

Thank you. Welcome. This is a very intolerant area, but don't let it bother you. There are a lot of us who are very tolerant of all types of people ( or else we couldn't live here!) and recognize the intolerance of the far left in our midst.

Posted by Stanford's Shame
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 14, 2007 at 9:11 pm

How many young Americans died in Iraq because Rumsfeld defied the advice of military advisors, with no other motive than to better sell the Iraq war to the American people.

How many troops went into battle unprepared, with poor equipment, because of oRumsfeld's poor planning - again, *against* the advice of his advisors.

Aside form all the war criminal talk, Rumsfeld has shown himself to be almost pathological in his lies, and absolutely unable to tolerate opposing points of view from his subordinates.

By every indication, using clinical descriptions that are readily availablbe to any psychiatrist, Rumsfeld is as close to - if not in reality - a sociopath.

This is one reason why America's current position in the world has seemd so insane; it's because we have had our military operations administered, until recently, by someone who is unable to administer from the joint qualities of wisdom and power. Rumsfeld lacks wisdom; thus the unbalance.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 15, 2007 at 2:08 am

Quickest victory and lowest casualties must be meaningless to the Stanford luminati, but they sound good to an old combat infantryman, grandpa of a Marine with two tours in Fallujah. When Stanford prided themselves in the refusal of SLAC to take military related work, Stanford contributed to whatever equipment shortages the military had.

And here's a transcript of Rumsfeld joking about 2.6 trillion that went missing from the Pentagon while Rabbi Dov Zakheim, an American and Israeli citizen, was Pentagon comptroller: Web Link

SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Congressman, thank you very much. Your question is, of course, right at the heart of an enormously important issue for the Department of Defense. We have a panel in the Quadrennial Defense Review on this subject. We have met with it twice in the last two weeks. We're obviously going to have to meet with it again. It is a big, broad, complicated subject.

As you know, the Department of Defense really is not in charge of its civilian workforce, in a certain sense. It's the OPM, or Office of Personnel management, I guess. There are all kinds of long- standing rules and regulations about what you can do and what you can't do. I know Dr. Zakheim's been trying to hire CPAs because the financial systems of the department are so snarled up that we can't account for some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that's believable. And yet we're told that we can't hire CPAs to help untangle it in many respects.

So it's a big problem, and you're quite right it is an aging civilian workforce, they tell me, technically. They all look young to me. (Laughter.)

Posted by USA First, Thank-you
a resident of Stanford
on Nov 15, 2007 at 5:10 pm

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets.

If you seriously believe the Israel-First gang are defenders of free speech, you need to examine the zionist cabal who forced/blackmailed DePaul University to deny tenure to Dr. Norman Finkelstein, including Alan Dershowitz, Elena Kagan, John Simon, James Block, Matt Rothschild, Ruth Conniff, and Charles Suchar.

Even DePaul clearly stated that Finkelstein is "a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher".

Better still, take a look at Dershowitz's campaign to halt publication of Finkelstein's latest book Beyond Chutzpah. Although he denies it, Dershowitz had sent a deluge of letters to Finkelstein's publishers and and other interested parties such as California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: Web Link